My daughter quit working at an IN walmart after several years of employment there. A fellow employee with a history of intimidation and small time violence threatened her "I am going to kill you" and "I am going to mess up your car" and "I know where you live" and so forth. The police were called and a report was filed.
Walmart fired that employee and told my daughter to take the next day off.
After returning to work the fired employees sister (who also works at Walmart) started in with subtle yet distinct similar threats, but not enough to be caught at or fired.
My Daughter quit, Walmart was offering no protection or alternative (different store or hrs etc.)
Unemployment reviewed her case and she was determined eligible for benefits do to the circumstances.
Walmart has since appealed the unemployment offices ruling, we have but a few days before the case.
My daughter tried to have the intimidators work disipline records and the managers familiar with this issue supeonead but the Adm judge denied the supeoneas.
Walmart, of course is refusing to even speak to my daughter, including the supervisors that she got along with well and counted on for support.
I am starting to feel that Walmart may be intimidating their own employees into silence. I have called our state representative but they have yet to return my call.
Can we get these records?
They will speak for themselves.
HELP?
thanx

My daughter quit working at an IN walmart after several years of employment there. A fellow employee with a history of intimidation and small time violence threatened her "I am going to kill you" and "I am going to mess up your car" and "I know where you live" and so forth. The police were called and a report was filed.
Walmart fired that employee and told my daughter to take the next day off.
After returning to work the fired employees sister (who also works at Walmart) started in with subtle yet distinct similar threats, but not enough to be caught at or fired.
My Daughter quit, Walmart was offering no protection or alternative (different store or hrs etc.)
Unemployment reviewed her case and she was determined eligible for benefits do to the circumstances.
Walmart has since appealed the unemployment offices ruling, we have but a few days before the case.
My daughter tried to have the intimidators work disipline records and the managers familiar with this issue supeonead but the Adm judge denied the supeoneas.
Walmart, of course is refusing to even speak to my daughter, including the supervisors that she got along with well and counted on for support.
I am starting to feel that Walmart may be intimidating their own employees into silence. I have called our state representative but they have yet to return my call.
Can we get these records?
They will speak for themselves.
HELP?
thanx

Odds are that the subpeonas were denied because the admin judge plans to rule in your favor and doesn't want to waste anyone's time.

The burden is on Walmart to bring witnesses and evidence to prove their case at this point.

This may not have anything to do with your daughter or her case, but then again, you never know...
Check out Equal Rights Advocates web site. they are a small law firm which currently has a BIG lawsuit against walmart for discrimination against females. they have a place for current & former walmart employees to check in to be included in the "class-action."
Based on the info in your post alone, this may not have anything to do with it...but then you never know...

Based on a post I got from Gramsic in the past for a different matter, It may be that Walmart is not planning on participating, and therefore the infomaiton you request is not needed. After reading what Gramsic said, I verified this with an attorney who deals with unemployment claims. This is correct. So, the site in "manned" by some knowledable people. but there are no gaurentees. Good luck to your daughter!

Thanx anyway, I thought this site was manned by knowledgable persons.
After reading some replys to other issues I can see that I was wrong.
In this case maybe it is state by state variations, the burden of proof according to the appeal court general instruction guide X-16 (8-03) Clearly states that in the case of quitting, the burden of proof is on the claiment rather than the employer.
Again, Thanx anyway, out time is about up on this issue, Monday is D-day.

Since Walmart is appealing they have the burden of proving that the lower ruling was flawed. Any other rule would have the absurd effect of creating a system where an appeal is merely a de novo review of the lower level decision in every case. Why even bother with a lower level decision then?

The issue has already been determined in your favor. Thus, there is a strong (though rebuttable) presumption that your claim was evaluated correctly.

Furthermore, your daughter's sworn statement is VERY strong evidence in itself, and walmart would have to provide - at least - the requested documents in order to attempt to impeach her. Given that she also can bring a copy of the police report, I don't think there's anything Walmart could do to impeach her. It is likely that the only reason Walmart appealed is because they appeal every case of an employee who quit being granted unemployment.

The admin judge probably denied the subpeonas requesting managers familiar with the situation to testify because it would be, essentially, an invitation to them to either perjur themselves or harm their careers. The judge, in his experience, has determined that granting these type of subpeonas doesn't help get to the bottom of things and puts a burden on the managers that isn't fair. i.e., it is burdensome and often unnecessary.

As far as the personnel file - it contains private information on another individual, so it is not easy to get. Further, what is stopping Walmart from leaving out the relevant documents? This is likley just the judge looking out for you.

The judge just wants to get to the bottom of what happened. He doesn't want a redo of the OJ Simpson trial at the first step in an Unemployment appeal. Indiana currently has the largest backlog of unemployment appeals of any state. It doesn't make sense to turn an appeal hearing into an all-out trial, when odds are that additional fact-finding won't be necessary.

He just wants to get the bottom of it, and, he, probably correctly, has decided he can do that without granting the subpeonas. If, at the hearing, he can't figure it out, he'll issue the subpeonas and ask you to come back at a later date.